Pfeifer made the ruling based on comments posted on cleveland.com about the Sowell case. The comments were posted through a username created with an AOL e-mail address used by Saffold. The judge has denied making the comments, and her 23-year-old daughter has said she posted them.

Pfeifer found no evidence to suggest that Saffold made the postings, but he found the comments have "created a situation that 'poses an impediment to the judge's ability to resolve any remaining legal and factual issues in a way that will appear to the parties and the public to be objective and fair.' "

Pfeifer wrote in his order, "An objective observer who has read the online postings might reasonably question why comments about a defendant and defense counsel appearing before the judge were posted on the judge's personal online account, even if the judge did not make the comments herself."

Pfeifer made the ruling the same day Saffold wrote a strongly-worded letter to the Ohio Supreme Court arguing that she should not be disqualified from presiding over the Sowell trial.

Sowell's attorneys, Rufus Sims and John Parker, asked the court Monday to remove Saffold from the case, arguing that her actions have created an appearance of bias against Sims.

In her response, faxed to the court Thursday morning, Saffold wrote she has "not ever shown a bias, enmity or prejudice to a defendant or his counsel" in her 15 years on the bench.

"I have never publicly or anonymously, online or otherwise, attacked Defense Counsel Sims, his co-defense counsel or Defendant Sowell," she wrote. "Absent any proof that I have, any further speculation on the matter is mere conjecture, an attempt to make this judicial process a sideshow and shift focus from the real issues in this case."

Sowell is accused of killing 11 women whose remains were found last fall at his house on Imperial Avenue in Cleveland.

Sims and Parker, who filed three motions with Saffold asking her to step down before they went to the Supreme Court, have argued for her dismissal from the case for a variety of reasons. Their overall argument is that Saffold should be disqualified to remove any appearance of prejudice or bias.

The defense lawyers argued that Saffold had a private conversation with fellow Judge Timothy McGinty about the Sowell case without Sowell or his lawyers present. In her filing Thursday, Saffold said her conversation with McGinty "did not have anything to do with substantive matters or issues. . . It did not go into the merits of this matter, i.e., the guilt of innocence of the Defendant or the ability of the Defendant to receive a fair trial."

Pfeifer ruled that Parker and Sims did not show that Saffold engaged in an improper private conversation with McGinty.

Another reason the lawyers offered for removing Saffold is the series of comments posted on cleveland.com, a website affiliated with The Plain Dealer, about cases in Saffold's courtroom, including the Sowell trial. One comment disparaged Sims. The comments were made under the username "lawmiss." A newspaper analysis of county records found that Saffold's courthouse computer often visited cleveland.com at the same time lawmiss comments were posted.

Saffold said in her Supreme Court filing that, "like thousands of other Clevelanders, I do visit the "Cleveland.com" site, which is the online version of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The fact that my computer was open to Cleveland.com at the same time that lawmiss posted comments is merely coincidence -- two things happening at the same time, but with no causal relationship between them."

The Sowell defense team also argued for Saffold's removal because the judge has sued the newspaper and affiliated companies for $50 million, claiming the defendants violated a website privacy policy by publishing a story about the lawmiss comments. The Sowell defense team says the lawsuit gives Saffold a financial stake in the Sowell trial.

Saffold's response: "This is categorically untrue. The subject matter of the civil suit relates to the Plain Dealer's violation of its online privacy policy with regard to the comments posted by my daughter and the Plain Dealer's inaccurate attribution of her postings to me." Pfeifer found nothing to indicate Saffold had a financial stake in the Sowell trial.

Saffold maintained that that she has no bias against Sims. She wrote that she has heard approximately 20 cases in which Sims represented the defendant and at no time has any bias been claimed. Nor, she said, has any bias been claimed or shown in any case before her on the bench.

But Pfeifer quoted a longtime appellate judge in his ruling, saying that "When the case becomes about the judge rather than the facts of the case and the law, it is time for the judge to step aside. . . I conclude that Judge Saffold should be removed from the underlying case to avoid any appearance of impropriety."

Pfeifer said he saw nothing that caused him to question Saffold's ability to be fair and impartial in the Sowell case.

"The record before me does not support a finding of actual bias or prejudice on Judge Saffold's part. Nevertheless, her removal is necessary."

A new judge for the case will be selected by random draw.

Saffold could not be reached for comment.

Sims said, "The appearance of impropriety was something he could not overlook. . . We always said it was about that. All we ever wanted to do is move this case forward. We are happy to move on."

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.